this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
662 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18878 readers
4048 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Twoafros@lemmy.world 113 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Good to see people calling out NYT for their nonsense

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 27 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I'm glad they're doing it. This sane-washing shit drives me crazy. You constantly see headlines saying things like "Trump proposes new policy making guaranteeing sunshine and rainbows for everyone" when in reality, a Trump supporter asked him about lowering food prices and he went in a 15 minute rant that included him saying "and I am the best at sunshine, the sunshine loves me... and don't even get me started at the rainbows... my communist opponent hates rainbows but not me, the rainbows said 'sir, you are the best at sunshine and rainbows, more than anyone has ever seen'."

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know if "sane-washing" is the right term. It seems more like they are working as campaign staff to spin a message out of his ramblings.

If they were interested in journalism, they'd say that Trump's plan to lower food prices is to love rainbows and receive love from sunshine. You know, just stating the facts. The term "sane-washing" to me infers that the entity doing the sane-washing is a journalist and not a campaign staffer.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Making incoherent ramblings sound like campaign messages is the exact meaning of “sane-washing”.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

That definition goes with "spinning" the story. However this goes beyond just spinning and it's much more than just whitewashing over a couple imperfections. This is completely rewriting his words and campaigning for the man.

This is taking spinning a story to a new level and "sane-washing" just doesn't convey the weight of their actions. With these actions, the New York Times is more like Trump's A-team campaign management. It's almost like a reverse Dunning-Kruger Effect, where they attempt to make him look like he has ideas and substance when there isn't any.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 hours ago

Yeah I had a Facebook friend say "This will be unpopular, but I disagree with the two tax breaks being proposed by both candidates."

It had me scratching my head. I've yet to hear Trump propose an actual policy about tax breaks. I heard him ramble about shit and then the media sane-washes it into a policy.

For example, not too long ago Trump said to some CEOs that he'd like to get the corporate tax rate to 20% because it sounded like a "nice, round number". That is an absolutely insane way to set a tax rate.

But the media took it and ran with it and you saw headlines all over the place about Trump's super serious tax policy. Saying "20% sounds nice" isn't a fucking policy!! There was no thought or planning to see the impact of such a rate. Just "yeah that sounds nice". Fuck this guy and people that cover up for his ramblings.